Stjernerne skal falde ned fra himlen

Hvad mente Jesus egentlig med det?
Skal vi regne med at få solen og mælkevejen i hovedet en dag.
Jeg skal ha købt mig en hjælm

Hvad mente Jesus egentlig med det?
Skal vi regne med at få solen og mælkevejen i hovedet en dag.
Jeg skal ha købt mig en hjælm

Du behøver ingen hjelm, det er ikke bogstavelig ment. Jeg fandt dette link, der forklarer det godt:
http://www.unification.dk/princippet/kap04_af2.htm

Jeg kan anbefale denne hjelm

Jeg kan anbefale denne hjelm

Hmmmm, gad vide om de fåes på tilbud?? 😕 😉 😃

[quote="Bjarne2411" post=2696409]Hvad mente Jesus egentlig med det?
Skal vi regne med at få solen og mælkevejen i hovedet en dag.
Jeg skal ha købt mig en hjælm[/quote]
Du behøver ingen hjelm, det er ikke bogstavelig ment. Jeg fandt dette link, der forklarer det godt:
http://www.unification.dk/princippet/kap04_af2.htm

Tusind tak for linket det besvarer jo mange spørgsmål.
Og så er det skrevet så selv jeg kan forstå hvad de skriver

Jeg kan anbefale denne hjelm

Tror du man kan få indholdet med?

Det er da klart du kommer i det romantiske hjørne ved udsigten til massevis af stjerneskud.

Tilbud? De bliver da revet væk, uanset hvad de koster 😃

Du behøver ingen hjelm, det er ikke bogstavelig ment.

Hvor har du det dog fra at det ikke er bogstaveligt ment? Du må ikke bøje Guds Ord. Havde det ikke skulle forstås bogstaveligt, havde det vel stået at det ikke skulle forstås bogstaveligt.

Hvad mente Jesus egentlig med det?
Skal vi regne med at få solen og mælkevejen i hovedet en dag.

Det beskriver Syndefaldet, som fandt sted engang for mindst 6 000 år siden. Hvor Guds førstefødte søn Lucifer gjorde oprør sammen med 1/3 af englene og blev kastet ud af Himmelen. Lucifer blev Satan og fristede Adam og Eva i Edens Have og drog dem med i sit syndefald. De faldne engle blev dæmonerne.

[quote="Bjarne2411" post=2696409]Hvad mente Jesus egentlig med det?
Skal vi regne med at få solen og mælkevejen i hovedet en dag.[/quote]
Det beskriver Syndefaldet, som fandt sted engang for mindst 6 000 år siden. Hvor Guds førstefødte søn Lucifer gjorde oprør sammen med 1/3 af englene og blev kastet ud af Himmelen. Lucifer blev Satan og fristede Adam og Eva i Edens Have og drog dem med i sit syndefald. De faldne engle blev dæmonerne.

Mange tak for svaret, men det er jo en hel anden forklarring.
Er der da slet intet man er enig om i biblen.
Var jesus ikke Guds førstefødte?
og hvis det er så lang tid siden, kan det vel ikke være et tegn på endens tid,
Her er noget som ikke rigtig stemmer.

Var jesus ikke Guds førstefødte?[/quote]
Nej, Guds Førstefødte er Lucifer, som imidlertid gjorde oprør og blev forkastet og blev Satan. Hans plads som guds yndlingssøn blev indtaget Jesus.

[quote]og hvis det er så lang tid siden, kan det vel ikke være et tegn på endens tid,
Her er noget som ikke rigtig stemmer.

Jo, det stemmer meget godt. Syndefaldet peger imod endetiden. I mellemtiden har Gud ladet Satan husere for at prøve menneskene. Foran os står det endelige opgør, hvor satan og hans dæmoner kastes i afgrunden af en himmelsk hær under ledelse af ærkeenglen Mikael. Efter dette opgør, vil alle de mærkede får, d v s syndfrie menneskers sjæle bortrykkes til saligheden i Abrahams skød, og himmel og jord vil forgå sammen med alle synderne, til gråd og tænders gnidsel.
Her ser du satans og dæmonernes endelige nederlag og Mikaels triumf:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1940046/paradise_lost_3.jpg
Spørg bare hvis der er mere du vil vide. Der er helt styr på det her .....................

Wizcarlo skrev:
"Spørg bare hvis der er mere du vil vide. Der er helt styr på det her" .....................
😃
Wizcarlo!
Du er militant ateist.
Men hvis du tilbyder dig ud i Bibelforståelse, kan du måske komme med en forklaring på
Hvad der menes med at Jesus tømmer sig?
Paulus brev til Filipperne 2:/ (DA31)
afa

Men hvis du tilbyder dig ud i Bibelforståelse, kan du måske komme med en forklaring på
Hvad der menes med at Jesus tømmer sig?
Paulus brev til Filipperne 2:/ (DA31)

Lyder som noget en eller anden landsbytosse skrev.

🙂
Undskyld tastefejl.
Det rigtige kommer her.
Paulus brev til Filipperne 2:7 (DA31)
afa

Pjat, man gemmer sig ikke i huler for syndefaldet.
Når man skal forstå den slags tekster bør man naturligvis overveje, hvordan samtiden har forstået dem? Stjerner der falder fra himlen, som man kan gemme sig for i huler lyder som voldsomme stjerneskud: datiden havde formentligt oplevet småsten falde ned på jorden med de sædvanlige brag og huller i jorden. Så er det jo ikke så underligt, at de ikke ville gemme sig i husene, men i bjerghuler, som trods alt er en del mere holdbare.
Vi ved at dyr og de fleste naturfolk er nervøse når der sker måneformørkelser og især solformørkelser, som pludselig gør dag til nat. Så naturligvis skulle de med i ikset af forfærdelige himmelhændelser.
Jeg mener ikke stedet er så svært at forstå. Selv idag kalder vi småpartikler der falder ned fra himmelrummet for "stjerneskud" - de har naturligvis også opfattet den slags som stjerner der faldt ned.

Deet er et rigtigt godt link du her kommer med. Det forklare mange ting. Har du kilde til linkets udgiver?
Platoon

[quote="Zophia" post=2696426]Du behøver ingen hjelm, det er ikke bogstavelig ment.[/quote]
Hvor har du det dog fra at det ikke er bogstaveligt ment? Du må ikke bøje Guds Ord. Havde det ikke skulle forstås bogstaveligt, havde det vel stået at det ikke skulle forstås bogstaveligt.

Ja det er helt sikker

Har du drukket?
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_fallingstars.htm
Revelation 8:10 says, "The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water- the name of star is Wormwood" (NIV).
It continues on in verse 12, "The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night" (NIV).
Pliny describes a type of comet called "Torch-star (which) resembles glowing torches" (Natural History Book II.XXII.90).
I posit that this falling star in Revelation 8:10 is Halley’s Comet that appeared in 66 AD.
It would look like it fell into the Mediterranean Sea. I think the best interpretation of Revelation is seeing its fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
The Great Tribulation started three and half years before this.
Josephus says, "Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and (even) a comet, that continued a whole year" (Jewish Wars Book VI, V.3; Whiston, 824).
In Revelation 9:1 it says, "The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth.
The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss" (NIV).
In the gospels Jesus foretells that "stars will be falling from heaven" (Mark 13:25, Matthew 24:29) in his Olivet Discourse.
Citat slut.
_____________________________________
Nu skal man lige tænke på, at alt hvad der falder ned på planeten Jorden ikke er "stjerner", men "planeter", altså planet dele, stumper fra planeter d.v.s. meteorer, der er det, planeter er lavet af.
Stjerner er noget ganske andet og det leder tankerne hen på skabelsen af Universet, da E = mc2.
Altså, da Energi forvandledes til stjernestøv, altså de begyndende stjerner 15 milliarder år siden og for vor stjerne vedkommende 5 milliarder år siden.
Vor planet er dannet (som de andre planeter i vort solsystem) af "stjernestøv", rester fra vor Stjerne.
Platoon

Kolossenserne 1:15
Ifølge den er det da Jesus der den første, og før alting andet.

Jeg vil gerne kommentere dette ud fra en given tekst, som jeg vil vise dig:
There are many descriptions of Jesus in the Scripture. He is many things to us at the same time; Judge, Redeemer, King, Savior, Example, Lord and High Priest, to name a few.
He is also referred to as the "Image of the invisible God" and the "First-born of all Creation" (Colossians 1:15). Though we, with our finite minds, may be incapable of fully understanding or appreciating these two terms, much harm can come from misunderstanding them. For example, some teach that the term "first-born of all creation" shows that the Son of God was the first creature God created, and is not eternal Himself. This error involves a refusal to acknowledge God, the Son, as God and seeks to place Him at a lesser level than Deity.
Of course, the Bible in many places refers to the Son as "God" (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3; 5:18; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8,9; etc.). So, what do these two phrases mean as they apply to Jesus?
The Image of The Invisible God
"...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Jesus Christ is the "image of God" . But what does this mean? The word "image" (eikon) means "likeness; form or appearance". The use of this phrase helps us to understand a part of Jesus' mission; that is, to reveal to us what God is like.
Our Colossian text says that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". We have not seen God, nor can we with mortal eyes (Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17). So, in the person of His Son, God took upon Himself flesh so we could "behold" Him. This was the point of the angels' words to Joseph concerning the upcoming birth of Jesus; "...and they shall call His name Immanuel', which translated means 'God with us" (Matthew 1:23).
The gospel of John explains that "The Word was with God and was God" and that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" and "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:1-3;14;18).
On the night before His death, Jesus responded to Philip's request to "show us the Father" by saying, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you still have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" (John 14:8-10).
From these verses we learn that Jesus is God come in the flesh to show us the Father. Earlier, Jesus had proclaimed "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The word "one" means more than just in agreement. It means "of one essence or nature." Only "God" can be of the same nature as "God". Man has not seen God in His heavenly form and glory, but we have seen His image in Jesus, not in the physical body of Jesus but rather in His actions and teachings. When the early disciples worshipped Jesus, they were not sinning because they were worshiping God (Matthew 28:9).

Jeg vil godt kommentere dette ud fra en given tekst, som jeg vil markere hvad jeg mener du skal lægge vægt på, for at forstå skriftstedet i Kolessenserne kap. 1 vers 15:
There are many descriptions of Jesus in the Scripture. He is many things to us at the same time; Judge, Redeemer, King, Savior, Example, Lord and High Priest, to name a few.
He is also referred to as the "Image of the invisible God" and the "First-born of all Creation" (Colossians 1:15).
Though we, with our finite minds, may be incapable of fully understanding or appreciating these two terms, much harm can come from misunderstanding them.
For example, some teach that the term "first-born of all creation" shows that the Son of God was the first creature God created, and is not eternal Himself. This error involves a refusal to acknowledge God, the Son, as God and seeks to place Him at a lesser level than Deity.
Of course, the Bible in many places refers to the Son as "God" (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3; 5:18; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8,9; etc.). So, what do these two phrases mean as they apply to Jesus?
________________________________
The Image of The Invisible God
"...in whose case the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Jesus Christ is the "image of God" . But what does this mean? The word "image" (eikon) means "likeness; form or appearance". The use of this phrase helps us to understand a part of Jesus' mission; that is, to reveal to us what God is like.
____________________________________
Our Colossian text says that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". We have not seen God, nor can we with mortal eyes (Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17).
So, in the person of His Son, God took upon Himself flesh so we could "behold" Him.
This was the point of the angels' words to Joseph concerning the upcoming birth of Jesus; "...and they shall call His name Immanuel', which translated means 'God with us" (Matthew 1:23).
(altså, den ene af de tre guder i kontoret 3G, dør 3)
__________________________________________
The gospel of John explains that "The Word was with God and was God" and that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" and "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:1-3;14;18).
On the night before His death, Jesus responded to Philip's request to "show us the Father" by saying, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you still have not come to know Me, Philip?
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" (John 14:8-10).
_______________________________________________
From these verses we learn that Jesus is God - come in the flesh to show us the Father.
Earlier, Jesus had proclaimed "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
The word "one" means more than just in agreement. It means "of one essence or nature."
Only "God" can be of the same nature as "God".
(det har nogen altså fundet ud af, at det kan godt lade sig gøre, at være af en anden natur fordi der ikke er tale om "natur", men om kontor)
_____________________________________
Man has not seen God in His heavenly form and glory, but we have seen His image in Jesus, not in the physical body of Jesus but rather in His actions and teachings.
When the early disciples worshipped Jesus, they were not sinning because they were worshiping God (Matthew 28:9).
____________________________________
The Firstborn of All Creation
"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).
The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all.
Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used.

For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.
We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well.
God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27).
In what sense was David made God's "first-born"?
Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David.
But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.
So, when our text says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well.
The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).
___________________________________
And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19).
All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh.
There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.
Citat slut. http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-colossians-1-15.htm
Citat (nogle kommentarer af mig, slut)
________________________________

Kommentar:
Så, hvis nogen mener, at Jesus ikke (stadig) Gud i kødet og mener, at Jesus havde givet "afkald" på sin Guddommelighed, så er det løgn.
Platoon